6 ms·

It makes voting so complex you can't follow it, allowing manipulation. It's much simpler to have one vote from one person for one candidate. You shouldn't hav

It makes voting so complex you can't follow it, allowing manipulation. It's much simpler to have one vote from one person for one candidate. You shouldn't have to have a degree in stats (and that doesn't help much) to calculate the winner. Voters should be confident in the system and that means being able to verify it yourself with simple addition. Ranked choice voting is like the current tax code, full of exceptions and rules for the elite to manipulate while the common person gets boned.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> It's much simpler to have one vote from one person for one candidate. If there's only two candidates.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  No, it's simple addition for all candidates. You either got a vote from a person or not, leave it at that. Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened. But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor. -- edit @mikeyouse -- No I'm not mad, as I said I prefer to live in a place that has a simpler voting system where it's easy for everyone verify the vote and be confident in the system. I'm maybe more disappointed in people allowing it and being that naive. Do you feel the same way about the tax code or should just voting be complicated? How do you feel about the EC system? Were you advocating getting rid of it recently? There's a certain group of people wanting to flip the game table up here recently. -- edit @ceejayoz -- So the flipside of your statement would be you "grumping" about the simpler system. Has RCV solved the split vote issue? Hint: no it hasn't. Nor was that ever really a problem, just an excuse to implement RCV. -- edit @esoterica -- That's an extremely partisan take and not at all what I've heard from Alaskan friends. Pelosi is well respected in the party and in the state, no matter what liberals think, they usually mix her up with Tina Fey anyways.
  - tacomonstrous 4y ago
    Do you have any evidence for the claim that RCV was introduced in Alaska for the purpose of bringing a Democrat to the to power?
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      No because the system is overly complicated, thus the lack of trust in the system because it can't be validated by a common person. But if a heavy blue state elected a red governor (especially with a popular blue opponent) out of nowhere immediately after switching to a new voting system people here would be suspicious right? But because it happens that blue candidates are winning in areas they weren't before, everyone here is fine looking the other way and even defending it.
      - hatsix 4y ago
        https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ranked-Choice_Voting_and_Campaign_Finance_Laws_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ra... It was a ballot initiative that passed by will of the people. Who are you to argue about their decision?
        hunterb123 4y ago
        Yes as I said I choose not to live there and would never live in a place where the voters choose such a system. It's their choice, but it's a stupid choice. Personally it seems they were naive or even lied to about the outcome. I can argue their decision because of the 1A. Same as you can argue against their previous system...
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    > Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened. .. > But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor. So you're mad that a candidate that had less popular support won the election in Alaska but the system where there's been one Republican popular vote winner and 3 Republican presidents in the past 30 years is sacrosanct?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
KerrickStaley 4y ago
First past the post (the default in most US elections) is very problematic because it usually fails to elect the candidate that would make the average voter most happy. We need innovation in how we elect our representatives if we want our democracy to continue to thrive. I think IRV is an interesting step towards an alternative to FPTP, but as others have noted, it also has serious flaws. Condorcet methods (of which there are many) and approval voting / score voting much better, and I wish we would see more adoption of these. I would encourage you to look at approval voting, which is as simple as FPTP (the only difference is that you can vote for as many candidates as you want, instead of just one), but produces much better outcomes. https://ncase.me/ballot/ https://ncase.me/ballot/ is a good explainer of different voting methods.
- philjohn 4y ago
  And, barring statewide elections, is vulnerable to gerrymandering.
phailhaus 4y ago
What's so complex? You rank your candidates. If your first didn't win, your vote goes to the second, and so on. No "degree in stats" required. They even explain very plainly how the rounds went. Begich lost, his votes went to Palin and Peltola, Peltola won.
gsk22 4y ago
> Ranked choice voting is like the current tax code, full of exceptions and rules for the elite to manipulate while the common person gets boned. Really? Which rules and exceptions are you referring to?

ceejayoz 4y ago

> It's much simpler to have one vote from one person for one candidate. If there's only two candidates.

hunterb123 4y ago
No, it's simple addition for all candidates. You either got a vote from a person or not, leave it at that. Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened. But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor. -- edit @mikeyouse -- No I'm not mad, as I said I prefer to live in a place that has a simpler voting system where it's easy for everyone verify the vote and be confident in the system. I'm maybe more disappointed in people allowing it and being that naive. Do you feel the same way about the tax code or should just voting be complicated? How do you feel about the EC system? Were you advocating getting rid of it recently? There's a certain group of people wanting to flip the game table up here recently. -- edit @ceejayoz -- So the flipside of your statement would be you "grumping" about the simpler system. Has RCV solved the split vote issue? Hint: no it hasn't. Nor was that ever really a problem, just an excuse to implement RCV. -- edit @esoterica -- That's an extremely partisan take and not at all what I've heard from Alaskan friends. Pelosi is well respected in the party and in the state, no matter what liberals think, they usually mix her up with Tina Fey anyways.
- tacomonstrous 4y ago
  Do you have any evidence for the claim that RCV was introduced in Alaska for the purpose of bringing a Democrat to the to power?
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    No because the system is overly complicated, thus the lack of trust in the system because it can't be validated by a common person. But if a heavy blue state elected a red governor (especially with a popular blue opponent) out of nowhere immediately after switching to a new voting system people here would be suspicious right? But because it happens that blue candidates are winning in areas they weren't before, everyone here is fine looking the other way and even defending it.
    - hatsix 4y ago
      https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ranked-Choice_Voting_and_Campaign_Finance_Laws_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ra... It was a ballot initiative that passed by will of the people. Who are you to argue about their decision?
      - hunterb123 4y ago
        Yes as I said I choose not to live there and would never live in a place where the voters choose such a system. It's their choice, but it's a stupid choice. Personally it seems they were naive or even lied to about the outcome. I can argue their decision because of the 1A. Same as you can argue against their previous system...
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  > Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened. .. > But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor. So you're mad that a candidate that had less popular support won the election in Alaska but the system where there's been one Republican popular vote winner and 3 Republican presidents in the past 30 years is sacrosanct?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

KerrickStaley 4y ago

First past the post (the default in most US elections) is very problematic because it usually fails to elect the candidate that would make the average voter most happy. We need innovation in how we elect our representatives if we want our democracy to continue to thrive. I think IRV is an interesting step towards an alternative to FPTP, but as others have noted, it also has serious flaws. Condorcet methods (of which there are many) and approval voting / score voting much better, and I wish we would see more adoption of these. I would encourage you to look at approval voting, which is as simple as FPTP (the only difference is that you can vote for as many candidates as you want, instead of just one), but produces much better outcomes. https://ncase.me/ballot/ https://ncase.me/ballot/ is a good explainer of different voting methods.

philjohn 4y ago
And, barring statewide elections, is vulnerable to gerrymandering.

phailhaus 4y ago

What's so complex? You rank your candidates. If your first didn't win, your vote goes to the second, and so on. No "degree in stats" required. They even explain very plainly how the rounds went. Begich lost, his votes went to Palin and Peltola, Peltola won.

gsk22 4y ago

> Ranked choice voting is like the current tax code, full of exceptions and rules for the elite to manipulate while the common person gets boned. Really? Which rules and exceptions are you referring to?